The two who were also crucified

[GreyRabbit]

So I’ve two main questions:

In Mathew’s account of the crucifixion the revolutionaries both abused him Mathew 27:44 - “The revolutionaries who were crucified with him also kept abusing him in the same way.”

Luke’s account tells us that only one of the thieves hurled insults. Luke 39-43 - "One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” "
-borrowed text

My first question, why are the accounts different? How is it that on one hand it says they both abused him, and then on the other hand it says one was actually defending Him?

My second question–which is probably a no-brainer–is, because Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise, does that mean he’s a saint now (only we don’t know his name)?

 

[surritter]

Perhaps they both hurled insults at first, and then a little later, the “good thief” had a change of heart. Neither Gospel gives every verbatim word of what was spoken that day, so Matthew may have recorded the first exchange, and Luke picked up on the later softening of the good thief.

The traditional name given to the good thief is Dismas.

 

[The_Scott]

You also have to keep in mind the emphasis of each Gospel, and each respective theme. Matthew’s Gospel has a theme of the suffering servant, the Messiah who was betrayed. Luke, if I remember correctly, generally has the theme of a kind, gentler, forgiving Savior.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

So I’ve two main questions:

In Mathew’s account of the crucifixion the revolutionaries both abused him Mathew 27:44 - “The revolutionaries who were crucified with him also kept abusing him in the same way.”

Luke’s account tells us that only one of the thieves hurled insults. Luke 39-43 - "One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” "
-borrowed text

My first question, why are the accounts different? How is it that on one hand it says they both abused him, and then on the other hand it says one was actually defending Him?

My second question–which is probably a no-brainer–is, because Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise, does that mean he’s a saint now (only we don’t know his name)?

I’ve always loved the story of the good thief. Yes - I believe he did go to heaven with Jesus. Afterall, we was sorry for his sin and unlike most of us, was also punished already on earth for them. So, like the good thief, whenever I am suffering some trial, I offer it up to God as atonement for my sins and ask Him to remember me when I approach His Kingdom.

 

[surritter]

Also, I recall hearing somewhere that the “paradise” mentioned by Jesus wasn’t necessarily Heaven. Anyone have clarification on this?

 

[GreyRabbit]

Thanks all =)

@surritter: man, if the paradise Jesus was talking about wasn’t Heaven, what else could it possibly be? !! ^^;;;

 

[Layp3rs0n]

“Paradise” was likely the realm of the righteous dead. Also called the “Bosom of Abraham”. We know Christ descended to hell immediately after His death, ie to the dead. After Christ’s Ascended to Heaven he threw open the Gates to these righteous dead.

 

[pablope]

Thanks all =)

@surritter: man, if the paradise Jesus was talking about wasn’t Heaven, what else could it possibly be? !! ^^;;;

Keep in mind the language, lingo to the time. To the Jews, Paradise was also another name for Abraham’s bosom…where the OT righteous were waiting.

This is also recounted in 1peter 3, where it is recounted where Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison.

And is also in the apostle’s creed…“he descended into hell…”

newadvent.org/cathen/01055a.htm

In the Holy Bible, the expression “the Bosom of Abraham” is found only in two verses of St. Luke’s Gospel (16:22-23). It occurs in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the imagery of which is plainly drawn from the popular representations of the unseen world of the dead which were current in Our Lord’s time. According to the Jewish conceptions of that day, the souls of the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place the Sheol of the Old Testament literature, and the Hades of the New Testament writings (cf. Luke 16:22; in the Greek 16:23). A local discrimination, however, existed among them, according to their deeds during their mortal life. In the unseen world of the dead the souls of the righteous occupied an abode or compartment of their own which was distinctly separated by a wall or a chasm from the abode or compartment to which the souls of the wicked were consigned. The latter was a place of torments usually spoken of as Gehenna (cf. Matthew 5:29, 30; 18:9; Mark 9:42 sqq. in the Latin Vulgate) — the other, a place of bliss and security known under the names of “Paradise” (cf. Luke 23:43) and “the Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22-23).

 

[GreyRabbit]

Ahh, I see I see. Heh, that makes sense. Thank you!!

 

[Loveolivia]

http://www.castoffdebt.comlol

 

[thistle]

Thanks all =)

@surritter: man, if the paradise Jesus was talking about wasn’t Heaven, what else could it possibly be? !! ^^;;;

The doors of Heaven were not opened before the Resurrection so the “paradise” referred to is not Heaven. It would be what was called the bosom of Abraham.

 

[patrick457]

My first question, why are the accounts different? How is it that on one hand it says they both abused him, and then on the other hand it says one was actually defending Him?

There are a number of possible answers here. One, which attempts to harmonize the conflict between Matthew and Mark against Luke, supposes that both criminals mocked Jesus at first, but then a bit later one of them began to have a change of heart and repented. Another interpretation is that Matthew and Mark were gave a very vague, general , while Luke provides what happened specifically.

And The_Scott brings up a very good point about the different emphases between different gospels. In Matthew and Mark, much emphasis is laid upon the use of Scriptural quotations and allusions, such as Psalms 22 and 69, to describe Jesus’ final moments (IMHO, not so much a case of ‘prophecy historicized’ a la John Dominic Crossan, but rather ‘history scripturalized’). Matthew and Mark’s description that virtually just about everyone - the passersby, “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders,” and up to and including fellow crucifixion victims - reviled Jesus helps to flesh out the Scriptural allusions to the Just One being rejected and scorned by all more:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

The pericope of the criminal who defended Jesus, meanwhile, is crucial to Luke’s gospel, which puts a huge emphasis on repentance and forgiveness. This is, after all, the gospel that has parables like that of the Prodigal Son and the Pharisee and the Publican, and the one where Jesus is recorded as saying things like “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (in most manuscripts, anyway, excluding certain ones) and “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations.” He wouldn’t have passed on the chance to include a story which so nicely fits in with one of his overall themes.

Then there’s also the running theme of Jesus’ innocence throughout the Lukan Passion narrative. Luke tries to make it clear now and again that Jesus was a guiltless Man who never committed any wrongdoing and so did not really deserve to die, to the point that he records the centurion’s words after Jesus’ death as “Truly, this man was righteous.” The repentant criminal’s words sum this theme all up rather nicely: “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

My second question–which is probably a no-brainer–is, because Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise, does that mean he’s a saint now (only we don’t know his name)?

Oh yes. The Good ‘Thief’ is usually venerated under the name of Saint Dismas (among many other names given to him), with his feast day falling on March 25th, which also happens to be the feast of the Annunciation. (Note that some early Christians thought, working under the Jewish idea that prophets and holy men die on the very same day they were conceived or born, that the actual day of Jesus’ death was March 25th. This probably explains why Dismas was assigned this date.)

 

[surritter]

“Paradise” was likely the realm of the righteous dead. Also called the “Bosom of Abraham”. We know Christ descended to hell immediately after His death, ie to the dead. After Christ’s Ascended to Heaven he threw open the Gates to these righteous dead.

Right – that’s what I guess I had heard. But then, can we safely say that Dismas indeed went to Heaven?

If so, that makes a good bar bet: Who was the first canonized saint? (Hint: he was canonized by the Founder of our religion.)

 

[GreyRabbit]

There are a number of possible answers here. One, which attempts to harmonize the conflict between Matthew and Mark against Luke, supposes that both criminals mocked Jesus at first, but then a bit later one of them began to have a change of heart and repented. Another interpretation is that Matthew and Mark were gave a very vague, general , while Luke provides what happened specifically.

And The_Scott brings up a very good point about the different emphases between different gospels. In Matthew and Mark, much emphasis is laid upon the use of Scriptural quotations and allusions, such as Psalms 22 and 69, to describe Jesus’ final moments (IMHO, not so much a case of ‘prophecy historicized’ a la John Dominic Crossan, but rather ‘history scripturalized’). Matthew and Mark’s description that virtually just about everyone - the passersby, “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders,” and up to and including fellow crucifixion victims - reviled Jesus helps to flesh out the Scriptural allusions to the Just One being rejected and scorned by all more:

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

The pericope of the criminal who defended Jesus, meanwhile, is crucial to Luke’s gospel, which puts a huge emphasis on repentance and forgiveness. This is, after all, the gospel that has parables like that of the Prodigal Son and the Pharisee and the Publican, and the one where Jesus is recorded as saying things like “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (in most manuscripts, anyway, excluding certain ones) and “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations.” He wouldn’t have passed on the chance to include a story which so nicely fits in with one of his overall themes.

Then there’s also the running theme of Jesus’ innocence throughout the Lukan Passion narrative. Luke tries to make it clear now and again that Jesus was a guiltless Man who never committed any wrongdoing and so did not really deserve to die, to the point that he records the centurion’s words after Jesus’ death as “Truly, this man was righteous.” The repentant criminal’s words sum this theme all up rather nicely: “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

Oh yes. The Good ‘Thief’ is usually venerated under the name of Saint Dismas (among many other names given to him), with his feast day falling on March 25th, which also happens to be the feast of the Annunciation. (Note that some early Christians thought, working under the Jewish idea that prophets and holy men die on the very same day they were conceived or born, that the actual day of Jesus’ death was March 25th. This probably explains why Dismas was assigned this date.)

Thanks a ton! If I may ask, have you read or seen that book Life of the Good Thief by Msgr. Gaume? If you have, do you know if it’s any good? I heard tell that it says The Good Thief had met the Holy Family, and persuaded his comrades not to rob them, or something. Is that true?

 

[GreyRabbit]

Right – that’s what I guess I had heard. But then, can we safely say that Dismas indeed went to Heaven?

If so, that makes a good bar bet: Who was the first canonized saint? (Hint: he was canonized by the Founder of our religion.)

Given this:

…
Oh yes. The Good ‘Thief’ is usually venerated under the name of Saint Dismas (among many other names given to him), with his feast day falling on March 25th, which also happens to be the feast of the Annunciation. (Note that some early Christians thought, working under the Jewish idea that prophets and holy men die on the very same day they were conceived or born, that the actual day of Jesus’ death was March 25th. This probably explains why Dismas was assigned this date.)

I would say it’s a safe thing to say =p

 

[patrick457]

Thanks a ton! If I may ask, have you read or seen that book Life of the Good Thief by Msgr. Gaume? If you have, do you know if it’s any good? I heard tell that it says The Good Thief had met the Holy Family, and persuaded his comrades not to rob them, or something. Is that true?

Unfortunately I haven’t. Now the idea that the good ‘thief’ (thief is a rather inadequate way to translate the Greek lēstēs, which implies a use of force; incidentally it is also the word used for Barabbas) was a highwayman who tried to attack the Holy Family comes from an apocryphal work known as the Arabic Infancy Gospel. In the work, the good and bad robbers are given the names ‘Titus’ and ‘Dumachus’, respectively.

And turning away from this place, they came to a desert; and hearing that it was infested by robbers, Joseph and the Lady Mary resolved to cross this region by night. But as they go along, behold, they see two robbers lying in the way, and along with them a great number of robbers, who were their associates, sleeping. Now those two robbers, into whose hands they had fallen, were Titus and Dumachus. Titus therefore said to Dumachus: I beseech you to let these persons go freely, and so that our comrades may not see them. And as Dumachus refused, Titus said to him again: Take to yourself forty drachmas from me, and hold this as a pledge. At the same time he held out to him the belt which he had about his waist, to keep him from opening his mouth or speaking.

And the Lady Mary, seeing that the robber had done them a kindness, said to him: The Lord God will sustain you by His right hand, and will grant you remission of your sins. And the Lord Jesus answered, and said to His mother: Thirty years hence, O my mother, the Jews will crucify me at Jerusalem, and these two robbers will be raised upon the cross along with me, Titus on my right hand and Dumachus on my left; and after that day Titus shall go before me into Paradise. And she said: God keep this from you, my son. And they went thence towards a city of idols, which, as they came near it, was changed into sand-hills.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is what St. Augustine says in his Harmony of the Gospels,

The question then is, how we can reconcile either Matthew’s report, “The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth,” or Mark’s, namely, “And they that were crucified with Him reviled Him,” with Luke’s testimony, which is to the effect that one of them reviled Christ, but that the other arrested him and believed on the Lord. The explanation will be, that Matthew and Mark, presenting a concise version of the passage under review, have employed the plural number instead of the singular; as is the case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we find the statement given in the plural form, that “they stopped the mouths of lions,”(Heb 11:33) while Daniel alone is understood to be referred to. Again, the plural number is adopted where it is said that they “were sawn asunder,”(Heb 11:37) while that manner of death is reported only of Isaiah. In the same way, when it is said in the Psalm, “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel together,” etc.,(Ps 2:2) the plural number is employed instead of the singular, according to the exposition given of the passage in the Ac of the Apostles. For those who have made use of the testimony of the said Psalm in that book take the kings to refer to Herod, and the princes to Pilate.(Acts 4:26-27) But further, inasmuch as the pagans are in the habit of bringing such slanderous charges against the Gospel, I would ask them to consider how their own writers have spoken of Phaedras and Medeas and Clytemnestras, when there really was but a single individual reputed trader each of these names. And what is more common, for example, than for a person to say, “The rustics also behave insolently to me,” even although it should only be one that acted rudely? In short, no real discrepancy would be created by the restriction of Luke’s report to one of the two robbers, unless the other evangelists had declared expressly that “both” the malefactors reviled the Lord; for in that case it would not be possible for us to suppose only one individual intended under the plural number. Seeing, however, that the phrase employed is “the robbers,” or “those who were crucified with Him,” and the term “both” is not added, the expression is one which might have been used if both these men had been engaged in the thing, but which might equally well be adopted if one of the two had been implicated in it,—that fact being then conveyed by the use of the plural number, according to a familiar method of speech. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.16)

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is the great comment from Cornelius a Lapide

The Greek Fathers, and S. Hilary among the Latins, think it probable that both the thieves blasphemed Christ at first, but that one of them afterwards repented. But the Latin Fathers consider that the plural is here, by synecdoche, put for the singular. “Thieves,” i.e., “one of the thieves” (as Luke xxiii. 36, “the soldiers,” meaning one of them); S. Matthew wishing by the word thieves to point out not so much the persons of the thieves, as the condition of those who insulted Christ; all vying in insulting Him, even the thief at His side. S. Luke (xxiii. 40) gives the story of the other thief (see Comment. in loc.).

Here is another great one from the Haydock Bible

one of them, the other being converted, as we find Luke xxiii. 39. (Witham) — St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, and Ven. Bede say, that at first both of the thieves blasphemed; but one of them seeing the wonderful things that happened, viz. that the sun was darkened, the rocks split asunder, &c. was terrified and converted, he believed in Jesus, and atoned for his former evil language, by praying to him as to his God. (Denis the Carthusian)

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is a comment from Fr. William Most

His enemies even mocked Him in such pain, and so did the two thieves, seemingly both at first, but then one of them changed, and said: “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom:” Lk 23:43. Jesus replied: "This day you will be with me in paradise.

Here is what Bishop John McEvilly says

by the robbers who were crucified along with Him, as SS . Matthew and Mark testify. The Evangelists use the word, “thieves” in the plural number, by a figure quite common in Scripture, by which the plural is employed for the singular. Thus it is said (Luke 23:36), “the soldiers offered Him vinegar” whereas only one soldier did so. Only one of the thieves reviled our Lord (Luke 23:40). Whether the penitent thief, in the first instance, joined his associate in reviling our Lord, and became afterwards converted, is disputed; but the most common opinion among the Latin Fathers is, that he did not, from first to last, revile our Blessed Lord. St. Luke circumstantially relates what is only expressed here in general words by St. Matthew, He also describes the conversion of the penitent thief, and the promise of salvation made to him by our Redeemer, (23:39, &c.)